In re the Marriage of:

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A19-0844

In re the Marriage of:

Judy Ann Jacques, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Nicholas Melvin Jacques,
Appellant.

Filed December 16, 2019
Affirmed
Jesson, Judge

Carver County District Court
File No. 10-FA-17-341

James T. Williamson, Haugen Law Group, PLLC, Chaska, Minnesota (for respondent)

Roger E. Meyer, Mark E. Mullen, Jens en, Mullen, McSweeney, & Meyer, PLLP,
Bloomington, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Pr esiding Judge; Jesson, Judge; and Smith,
John P., Judge.


 Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of A ppeals, serving by appoi ntment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
JESSON, Judge
After nearly 20 years, appellant Nicholas Melvin Jacques (husband) and respondent
Judy Ann Jacques (wife) dissolved their marriage. Husband challenges the district court’s
decision awarding wife the parties’ homest ead and permanent spousal maintenance.
Because we conclude that the di strict court did not abuse its discretion in either decision,
we affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Nicholas Melvin Jacques (h usband) married respondent Judy Ann
Jacques (wife) in 1997. Duri ng their marriage, wi fe worked as an accounts receivable
specialist and did some private bookkeeping, a nd husband worked as a truck driver. The
parties have four children together, including one minor child. Over the course of their
roughly twenty-year marriage, husband and wife accumulated an estate valued at over
$1 million.
In September 2017, the parties separate d, and wife filed a petition for dissolution. 1
Throughout the dissolution proceeding, husb and did not comply with court orders,
ultimately resulting in the district court finding him in contempt of court after he failed to
appear at a scheduled hearing.2 Additionally, during the dissolution proceeding, husband

1 At that time, wife had an order for protection (OFP) against husband.
2 The district court issued a bench warrant, and police arrested husband. In order to ensure
that husband followed district court orders and participated in the dissolution proceeding,
the district court established conditions requiring husband’s compliance in order to stay his
incarceration.

3
withdrew roughly $83,500 in cash from the parties’ bank accounts and had cashier’s checks
issued to himself and his friends for hundreds of thou sands of dollars. And husband
repeatedly refused to disclose the loca tion of these funds. Despite husband’s
noncooperation, the parties re ached a stipulation awarding wi fe sole legal and physical
custody of their minor child. But they were unable to reach an agreement on several other
issues.
Because of this impasse, the district c ourt held a one day trial in October 2018.
Topics for resolution at trial included prop erty division, wife’s spousal-maintenance
request, and husband’s child-support obligation. At the trial, wife testified about her
income and expenses, referencing exhibits s ubmitted to the court. According to wife,
because she was recently passed over for a promotion, sh e anticipated her income would
be roughly the same for the foreseeable future. Wife then explained that she calculated her
expenses by using QuickBooks and averaging her expenses for the past three years. Wife
provided testimony about her monthly housing costs, her car payment, a listed monthly tax
expense, car insurance, and medical debt expenses. Additionally, wife explained that she
sought $600 per month as permanent spousal maintenance from husband, in part to help
offset the cost of obtaining her own medical and dental insurance.
Wife also testified about the homestead . According to wife , husband’s mother
deeded the land (upon which the homestead was later built) to husband. In 1994—before
the parties were married—husband deeded th e land to both himself and wife, and the
parties obtained a mortgage and completed the process to build a home on the land. At this
time, wife believed that the parties jointly owned the land and the homestead. Wife

4
explained that before the parties married, th ey split the mortgage equally and each paid
about $300 per month. That practice continued, wife asserted, once the parties got married
until they paid off the mortgage in 2004. Through her testimony, wife contended that the
homestead was marital property, but acknowledged that husband made a nonmarital claim
to it.
Husband also testified about his income , expenses, and his nonmarital claim to the
homestead. He described his income as a truck driver and attempted to explain his monthly
expenses, though his testimony was unc lear regarding certain expenses.
3 Regarding the
homestead, husband agreed that his mother deeded the land to him because he helped her
with property upkeep. Then, in case anything happened to him, husband deeded the land
to both himself and wife. And husband agreed that the parties then obtained a mortgage
for the homestead. But husband’s testimony differed from wife’s because, according to
him, he used money he earned before the marriage to pay off the mortgage after the parties
married. Husband, describing wife as “nothing but a renter,” asked the court to award him
the homestead and estimated that his nonmar ital interest in the property was around
$250,000-$260,000. But husband did not pr ovide documentary evidence to support his
valuation of his claimed nonmarital interest in the homestead. And throughout husband’s
testimony, the district court—noting the impor tance of the proceeding and attempting to

3 Husband also submitted a document detailing his estimated monthly expenses.

5
fairly elicit information from both parties—re peatedly insisted th at husband answer the
question being asked and refrain from talking over counsel.4
Following the trial, the district court issued a judgment and decree dissolving the
parties’ marriage. The district court found that wife’s monthly income was $4,304 and her
reasonable monthly expenses were $5,329. After considering statutorily required factors,
the district court found wife in need of spousal maintenance and awarded her $600 per
month in permanent spousal maintenance. With regard to the homestead—which both
husband and wife sought—the district court concluded that husband did “not [meet] his
burden to establish a nonmarital claim in the homestead.” In doing so, the district court
noted it did not find husband’s testimony credible . As a result, the district court awarded
the homestead to wife, where she intended to continue living with the minor child. Once
all property was divided, husband and wife each received 50% of the value of the property
classified as marital property. Husband appeals.
D E C I S I O N
Husband challenges the judgment and decree on two grounds. First, husband
contends that the district court erroneously failed to find that he had a nonmarital interest
in the homestead and incorrectly awarded th e entire property to wife. Second, husband
argues that the district court abused its di scretion by awarding wife permanent spousal
maintenance. We review each argument in turn.

4 Throughout his testimony, husband made several somewhat surprising claims, including
that he stashed roughly $60,000—from the parties’ accounts—in a tree and required $100
a day to meet his grocery needs.

6
I. The district court did not err by de nying husband’s nonmarital claim to the
homestead and awarding the homestead to wife.

Husband draws our attention to two alleged errors in the district court’s treatment
of the homestead. First, husband argues that the district court erred by failing to credit him
for his claimed nonmarital interest in the homestead. Next, husband posits that the district
court should not have awarded wife the homestead.
Husband’s Claimed Nonmarital Interest in the Homestead
In a marriage-dissolution proceeding, the di strict court must divide marital property
in a “just and equitable” manner. Minn. Stat . § 518.58, subd. 1 (2018). Marital property
is real or personal property acquired during the parties’ marriage. Minn. Stat. § 518.003,
subd. 3b (2018). And “[a]ll property acquired by either spouse” du ring the marriage “is
presumed to be marital property.” Id. But property acquired by e ither spouse before the
marriage is classified as nonmarital propert y. Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd. 3b(b).
“Whether property is marital or nonmarital is a question of law,” which this court considers
de novo. Olsen v. Olsen, 562 N.W.2d 797, 800 (Minn. 1997). But in evaluating whether
property is marital or nonmarital, reviewing courts defer to the district court’s factual
findings and do not set aside those findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Id.
Here, the district court found that husba nd obtained the land on which the homestead
was built from his mother before the marriage. Further, the dist rict court noted that both
parties submitted a deed from January 1994 showing that hu sband transferred ownership
of the property from himself to both husband and wife. But the court concluded that
husband “provided no other evidence or tes timony as to why he should be awarded the

7
home or in support of his alleged nonmarital interest.” Husband’s testimony was “sparse,
lack[ing] focus and . . . largel y unrelated to the factors nece ssary to meet his burden to
prove his nonmarital claim,” according to the district court, which did not find it credible.
As such, the court did not credit husband for his alleged nonmarital claim in the
homestead.5
We agree with the district court. Othe r than his own testimony about the value of
the land—which the district court did not credit—the only evidence husband provided
regarding the value of his claimed nonmarital interest was a constr uction loan document
from 1994 listing the lot value at $30,000. But this 25-year-old document does not account
for the change in value in th e land and the homestead that occurred during the parties’

5 Although we agree w ith the district court’s ultimately equal property division, we note
that it was error for the district court to c onclude that husband di d not have a nonmarital
interest in the homestead. The district court found that, before the marriage, husband both
obtained the land and deeded it to himself and wife. Property acquired before a marriage
is generally the nonmarital property of the person(s) who acquire that property. See Minn.
Stat. § 518.003, subd. 3b(b). On this record, however, th e district court’s error in failing
to recognize both parties’ nonmarital interests in the homestead is harmless. See Minn. R.
Civ. P. 61 (requiring courts to ignore harm less error). Specifically, wife’s testimony was
that, before the marriage, the parties equa lly contributed to th e costs and payments
associated with the property. Further, neither husband nor wife otherwise established the
value of their individual nonmarital interest. Therefore, the record indicates that the
parties’ nonmarital interests were equal. And because the parties’ nonmarital interests were
equal, and the district court equally divided what it (incorre ctly) identified as the marital
estate, there is no net difference in the divi sion of the property arising from the district
court’s failure to recognize the parties’ nonma rital interests in the homestead. On this
particular set of circumstan ces, we affirm the district court’s property division. See
Katz v. Katz, 408 N.W.2d 835, 839 (Minn. 1987) (stating that a district court’s decision
will not be reversed if it reaches the right result for the wrong reason); Wibbens v. Wibbens,
379 N.W.2d 225, 227 (Minn. App. 1985) (refu sing to remand for a de minimis, technical
error).

8
marriage. See Kerr v. Kerr, 770 N.W.2d 567, 571 (Minn. App. 2009) (stating that “[w]hen
marital and nonmarital assets have been co mmingled, the party asserting the nonmarital
claim must adequately trace the nonmarital funds in order to establish their nonmarital
character”). Because husband did not establish its value, we conclude that the district court
did not err by failing to credit him for his alleged nonmarital interest in the homestead.
Award of the Homestead to Wife
Husband also challenges the district c ourt’s decision to award the homestead to
wife. A district court has broad discretion to evaluate and divide property in a marital
dissolution, and we do not overturn a district court’s decision absent an abuse of discretion.
Antone v. Antone, 645 N.W.2d 96, 100 (Minn. 2002).
Here, in awarding the homestead to wife, the district court noted that wife lives there
with the parties’ minor child. Further, the district court credited wife’s testimony that she
had looked into alternative housing but would be unable to keep the minor child in the
same school district without taking on a sign ificant mortgage and her testimony that the
minor child would be upset if she were forced to move from the homestead. We agree with
the district court’s conclusion that awarding mother the homestead serves the minor child’s
best interests. It was not an abuse of disc retion for the district court to award wife the
homestead. See Schuck v. Schuck, 390 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn. App. 1986) (stating that “when
a decision reflects consideration of the minor children’s ages and circumstances” including
their best interests, “it will be upheld as a proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion”).

9
II. The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding wife permanent
spousal maintenance.

Husband also contends that the district court abused its discretion by awarding wife
permanent spousal maintenance. Specifically, husband argu es that several of wife’s
expenses were unreasonable and not supported by the record. We examine a district court’s
award of spousal maintenance for an abuse of discretion. Curtis v. Curtis , 887 N.W.2d
249, 252 (Minn. 2016). And, unless they are clearly erroneous, we uphold findings of fact
concerning spousal maintenance. Gessner v. Gessner , 487 N.W.2d 921, 923 (Minn.
App. 1992).
A court may award spousal maintenance if it finds that the maintenance-seeking
spouse either:
(a) lacks sufficient property , including marital property
apportioned to the spouse, to provide for reasonable needs of
the spouse considering the sta ndard of living established
during the marriage, especially, but not limited to, a period of
training or education, or

(b) is unable to provide adequate self-support, after considering
the standard of living establis hed during the marriage and all
relevant circumstances, through appropriate employment, or is
the custodian of a child whos e condition or circumstances
make it appropriate that the cust odian not be required to seek
employment outside the home.

Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 1 (2018); see Lyon v. Lyon, 439 N.W.2d 18, 22 (Minn. 1989)
(stating that an award of spousal maintenance requires a showing of need). And the statute
outlines several factors that a court must consider before awarding maintenance, including
financial resources of the party, time nece ssary to acquire education or skills for
employment, the standard of living during the marriage, the duration of the marriage, loss

10
of income and employment opportunities forgone by the spouse, the age and physical and
emotional condition of the spouse, the spouse ’s ability to pay maintenance, and each
party’s contribution to the marital property. Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 2(a)-(h) (2018).
If consideration of these fact ors warrants the conclusion that a spouse is in need of
maintenance, then the district court ma y order a temporary or permanent spousal
maintenance award. Id., subd. 2 (2018).
Here, the district court found that wife ’s income is $4,304 per month, and her
expenses totaled $5,329 each month. The distri ct court determined that wife’s testimony
was credible, and concluded that her claime d expenses were reasonable. Further, the
district court found husband’s income to be $7,001 per month and his expenses to be $3,528
each month. After considering each of the factors provided in the statute, the district court
concluded that wife demonstrated she needed maintenance and that husband had the ability
to pay. As a result, the district court awarded wife $600 each month in permanent spousal
maintenance.
Upon review of the record, we are satisfied that the district court’s findings are not
clearly erroneous. The record supports the district court’s findings that wife testified
credibly about her income and expenses and submitted a monthly expense tracker. Further,
the district court spent four pages in its order evaluating each statutory factor before
concluding that wife needed spousal maintenance. Because we are satisfied that the district
court correctly applied the law and because weighing evidence and determining credibility
are “within the province of the fact-finder,” we discern no abuse of discretion in the district

11
court’s decision to award wife spousal maintenance. Melius v. Melius, 765 N.W.2d 411,
417 (Minn. App. 2009).
Husband does not challenge his ability to pay spousal maintenance, but instead
argues that several of wife’s expenses are unreasonable. Specifically, husband identifies
the following expenses as unreasonable: $900 home equity loan payment, $625 automobile
expense, $175 monthly for car insurance, and $125 for medical expenses. Further, husband
contends that the district court failed to cons ider his child-support payment and that wife
no longer has a monthly tax-preparation expense. We address each expense below.
$900 Payment for Home Equity Loan
According to husband, th e $900 monthly expense for th e home equity loan is
unreasonable because it was not an actual expense (i.e. the amount due) and because wife
received other assets in the dissolution she c ould have used to pay the loan. But wife
testified that her $900 expense stemmed from th e amount necessary to repay the loan by
its due date. Wife acknowledged that she recently had only been paying the interest due—
in part because of her attorney fees—but that she had sometimes made $900 payments
during the marriage. The district court credited this testimony, and we defer to the district
court’s credibility determinations. Goldman v. Greenwood , 748 N.W.2d 279, 284
(Minn. 2008). Accordingly, nothing in the record suggests that it was clearly erroneous to
find this expense reasonable.
$625 Automobile Expense and $175 Automobile Insurance
Husband also argues that wife’s $6 25 monthly expense for her vehicle is
unreasonable because it exceeds the couple’s standard of living during their marriage and

12
because there is no documentary evidence rega rding wife’s new car lo an in the record.
Wife testified that, through a six-year loan, she obtained a new vehicle because her old
automobile was not reliable and was constan tly overheating. The district court found
wife’s car payment reasonable under the circum stances, referencing the fact that her old
vehicle no longer worked and that she obtaine d favorable financing. Similarly, husband
asserts wife’s alleged $175 monthly expens e for automobile insurance is unreasonable
because most of that is likely attributable to her new vehicle. But in her testimony, wife
explained that the insurance pa yment is for three vehicles. And again, the district court
determined that this expense was reasonable. Because the district court’s findings are
based on wife’s credible testimony, they are not clearly erroneous.6
Failure to Consider Monthly Child Support
In addition to his arguments about the re asonableness of wife’s expenses, husband
contends that the district court erroneously failed to consider his monthly child support
payment of $818 when evaluating wife’s income and expenses. Husband draws our
attention to Minnesota Statutes section 518.552, subdivision 2(a), which provides that one
factor the district court should consider is “the party’s ability to meet needs independently,
including the extent to whic h a provision for support of a child living with the party
includes a sum for that party as custodian.” (Emphasis added.) But we read that statutory
provision as requiring the court to consider child-support payments only to the extent that

6 Husband also asserts that because wife was awarded three other vehicles, she should have
used one of those. But wife testified that at least two of those vehicle were used by the
parties’ adult children, and that she intended to give one vehicle to the minor child who
would be learning to drive soon.

13
the child-support award exceeds the needs of the child and ex plicitly provides assistance
for the parent. Here, husband has not shown that his child-support payment exceeds the
amount required to pay for the needs of th e minor child. And because husband failed to
demonstrate that any of the child-support aw ard was in excess of the child’s needs, we
conclude it was not an abuse of discretion fo r the district court to decline to consider
husband’s child-support payment in its maintenance calculation.
$210 Tax-Preparation Expense and $125 Medical Expense
Finally, we note that the district cour t erroneously included two expenses when
calculating spousal maintenance. First, both parties acknowledge that wife no longer has
a $210 monthly tax-preparation expense. Second, husband correctly contends that a $125
medical expense for an adult child’s therapy was improperly included in wife’s expenses.
See Reif v. Reif , 410 N.W.2d 414, 416 (Minn. App. 1987) (stating that a parent’s
contributions to an adult ch ild cannot be consid ered when determining an appropriate
amount of maintenance). But even subt racting both amounts from wife’s monthly
expenses, wife’s monthly income ($4,304) is still less than her monthly expenses ($4,994).
Further, even including the $600 monthly spou sal maintenance, wife’s income ($4,904)
does not exceed her monthly expens es. As such, we conclude that the inclusion of these
expenses is a de minimis error not warranting reversal of the spousal-maintenance award.
See Wibbens v. Wibbens, 379 N.W.2d 225, 22 7 (Minn. App. 1985) (declining to remand
on the basis of a technical, de minimis error).
In sum, because husband failed to estab lish the value of his claimed nonmarital
interest in the home, it was not an abuse of disc retion for the district court to fail to credit

14
husband for his alleged nonmarital interest or to award the homestead to wife.
Additionally, despite a de mini mis error calculating wife’s m onthly expenses, the district
court did not abuse its discretion by awarding wife spousal maintenance.
Affirmed.